Looks good Claes!
I eyeballed the rest of the patch and found
nothing wrong - but with a patch this size
it would be easy to miss something.
Were you able to measure any improvement after
patching?
best regards,
-- daniel
On 12/12/2018 17:06, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2018-12-12 17:54, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Claes,
It might read even better if things like:
+ resultString = !specarg.isEmpty() ? specarg.intern(): opt;
were changed into:
+ resultString = specarg.isEmpty() ? opt : specarg.intern();
best regards,
I only found this pattern in this file, so incremental
diff will look like the below. I will update in place due hugeness of
webrev.
Thanks!
/Claes
diff -r 732b03e40349
src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/Driver.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/Driver.java
Wed Dec 12 17:41:46 2018 +0100
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/Driver.java
Wed Dec 12 18:03:57 2018 +0100
@@ -641,10 +641,10 @@
String specarg = spec.substring(sidx);
switch (specop) {
case '.': // terminate the option sequence
- resultString = !specarg.isEmpty() ?
specarg.intern(): opt;
+ resultString = specarg.isEmpty() ? opt :
specarg.intern();
break doArgs;
case '?': // abort the option sequence
- resultString = !specarg.isEmpty() ?
specarg.intern(): arg;
+ resultString = specarg.isEmpty() ? arg :
specarg.intern();
isError = true;
break eachSpec;
case '@': // change the effective opt name
@@ -655,7 +655,7 @@
val = "";
break;
case '!': // negation option
- String negopt = !specarg.isEmpty() ?
specarg.intern(): opt;
+ String negopt = specarg.isEmpty() ? opt :
specarg.intern();
properties.remove(negopt);
properties.put(negopt, null); // leave
placeholder
didAction = true;
